Eric Bednarz wrote in comp.lang.javascript:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE
...@web.de> writes:
>> Eric Bednarz wrote:
>>> David Mark <dmark.cins
...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> <!DOCTYPE HTML>
>>>> Why are you using HTML5?
>>> That’s not ‘using HTML5’, that’s choosing a rendering mode in a mnemonic
>>> fashion, and without the cargo cult parts that do nothing.
>> Incorrect. There is a difference in rendering between using a DOCTYPE
>> declaration without a public identifier (as here), a DOCTYPE declaration
>> containing only a public identifier, and a DOCTYPE declaration containing
>> both a public and a system identifier.
> “You should have provided some proof of your assertion, such as” an
> example of an external identifier that is expected to set rendering to
> ‘standards compatibility’ (e.g. system and public identifier for HTML
> 4.01) and results in a different ‘standards compatibility’ than your
> “proper, if colloquial, synonym” for HTML5 does.
Generally known facts, such as the existence of Standards, Almost Standards,
and Quirks Mode, and the different DOCTYPE declarations that do and do not
trigger them, do not require reference (in particular not here, where those
are rather well-known basics). I have also provided enough information so
that your statement can be easily falsified.
FWIW: <http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/>, referred by
<http://www.quirksmode.org/css/quirksmode.html>, provides a good overview.
What appears to be missing from that article is the case of the omitted
system identifier, but that is easily demonstrated, and explained at, e. g.,
<https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Mozilla's_DOCTYPE_sniffing>.
X-Post & F'up2 ciwam
PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300d...@news.demon.co.uk>
